Aktuella utvärderingar

Visa resultat

Här kan se resultatet från utvärderingen och exportera statistiken till ett annat program. Det går också att göra en enkel filtrering genom att klicka på svarsalternativen och kommentarerna eller en avancerad filtrering genom att använda knappen längst ned.

V13 - Mechatronic design, SSY155

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2013-03-18 - 2013-04-18
Antal svar: 31
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 67%
Kontaktperson: Marie Iwanow»

Your own effort

1. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?

We mean total time, that is, it comprises the time you spent in class and the time you spent on your own work. Try to estimate the average time over the entire study period.

31 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»8 25%
Around 20 hours/week»13 41%
Around 25 hours/week»6 19%
Around 30 hours/week»3 9%
At least 35 hours/week»1 3%

Genomsnitt: 2.22

- No motivation» (At most 15 hours/week)
- If there was more hours of exercise sessions, it would be good. » (At most 15 hours/week)
- Most of those houres were used to work around problems in the softwares we were supposed to use and to understand confusing problem descriptions» (Around 30 hours/week)

2. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?

31 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»2 6%
50%»2 6%
75%»7 22%
100%»20 64%

Genomsnitt: 4.45

- The lectures I attended were mostly confusing. Got the feeling that the teacher were looking at the slides for the very first time. Not well prepared lectures.» (25%)
- Mostly last 3 weeks» (50%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

The course syllabus states the course goals in terms of learning outcomes, i.e., knowledge, skills and attitudes to be acquired by the student during the course.

3. How understandable are the course goals?

31 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»8 25%
The goals are difficult to understand»7 22%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»13 41%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»3 9%

Genomsnitt: 2.35

- Can"t find any description of goals for the course on course homepage.» (I have not seen/read the goals)
- The exam did not reflect what I thought was the goal of the course» (The goals are difficult to understand)
- "discuss possibilities and limitations of mechatronics and to reflect on its impact on humans and on society such as sustainability, user-friendliness and efficiency." This was not touched upon during the course. » (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)

4. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?

Answer this this question and the succeeding one, only if you do know the course goals.

25 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»25 100%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2

5. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?

27 svarande

No, not at all»17 62%
To some extent»9 33%
Yes, definitely»1 3%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.4

- Exam was 40% fault detection and 40% describing functions, ~3 lectures covers 80% of the exam.» (No, not at all)
- Half of the exam was what we learned the last week. If an exam should be like that the course should have been a one week course.» (No, not at all)
- The exam tested a vary small portion of what was discussed during the course» (No, not at all)
- The exam was basically 80% material from the last two weeks and that material was not at all covered well by the teacher.» (No, not at all)
- I thought I was well prepared for the exam, yet it felt impossibly difficult and incomparable to the previous exams and the example exam. This seems a little unfair. The complexity of the actual exam problems were, when compared to what we had been exposed to during the course, utterly ridiculous...how on earth we could prepare for that I have no idea. It is, without a doubt, the worst and most unfair exam I have ever encountered. » (No, not at all)
- The exam did only test if you could be fast on the calculator.» (No, not at all)
- Almost only the two last weeks was examined and the questions about describing function was way harder then the ones on the exericise. I don"t think we were given the possibility to be exposed for exerices like that. Also the exercises on fault detection was very easy and some more demanding exercises would be good.» (No, not at all)
- I felt that the examination was really off the mark. The content of the first half of the course was handle as though it were trivia. The material of the second half, primarily on the describing function, was more of a messy and complex mathematical calculation set than an elegant problem which properly evaluated understanding of the topic.» (No, not at all)
- The exam contained content that was very different from previous years, including the once that was not suppose to. There were no material about the first 20/50p of the exam, not at exercises nor book or handed out materal. 4/50p was about a friction mentioned briefly at best.» (No, not at all)
- 20 points was from the last two lectures. nothing on dc motors. noting on sensors. » (To some extent)
- The exam contained to many points that tested us on the last 2 lectures.» (To some extent)
- The first part of the course felt like a waste of time. I wasn"t able to solve a single exercise and even if I would have, it wouldn"t help me in the exam since it was highly focused on the last part.» (To some extent)
- The exam was good BUT way to hard for the simple tasks taught during the course. For the describing function method we practiced on the simplest of problems and when we came to the exam we where supposed to put it into a much more advanced system. A bit of a gap between the level of teaching and what we are supposed to know...» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

6. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?

31 svarande

Small extent»13 41%
Some extent»14 45%
Large extent»4 12%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.7

- It was very unclear what we were supposed to learn and what depth. For example we learned how to use lagrange function but shortly after we were told that we would not have it on the exam at all, and we never used lagrange functions after that week or two we studied it. So why have it on the course??? The exercise sessions were good though.» (Small extent)
- Very small extend, the lectures slides are by them selves unreadable, the only literature that made sense was the one provided about Fault Detection and Gear/Motor one.» (Small extent)
- The lectures felt like summaries of the topic. I came away with the impression that I hadn"t actually learned anything new. The entire first half of the course was run through far too quickly to have been useful. He could have given us a handout and said, "Read this" and saved us all a few weeks time.» (Small extent)
- badly written lecture notes, difficult to understand them when you want to read them afterward» (Some extent)
- The lecture notes were quite hard to read (animation problems) and understand after the lecture if you haven"t made your own notes.» (Some extent)
- Got some insigth into a couple of useful programs. » (Some extent)
- The lectures with only powerpoints is hard to follow when examples and proofs is provided. Would be better to use the board for this. » (Some extent)
- There were lectures» (Some extent)
- I thought the lectures and exercise sessions were good. Although, what"s the point of only having half the exercise session for teaching? It"s as if Paulo thinks that we don"t do any work by ourselves. The classroom was virtually empty for the first hour.» (Large extent)

7. To what extent has the course literature and other material been of help for your learning?

31 svarande

Small extent»15 48%
Some extent»14 45%
Large extent»2 6%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.58

- I dont feel that i got anything from the book. The exercises that were there didn"t have solutions and our teacher refused to hand out solutions or at least hints on how to solve the problems.» (Small extent)
- The availability of the lecture notes was good. The book was also good but it would be nice if Paulo could have some references to it, what chapters that are good to read since its a 600 p book.» (Small extent)
- Read all relataed chapters in the beginning (the textbook), and I think the text were to deep and it didn"t help me before the exam. The fault detection text was good but maybe i little to long (would need more deept in the lectures to make it relevant). Describing function text was really good!» (Small extent)
- Didn"t use the book at all. You didn"t need the book for the lectures and since the exercises didn"t include answers there where no use for those either.» (Small extent)
- We only used the first few pages of the book. » (Small extent)
- Without answers it is very difficult to get feedback, hence knowing if you have understood the course correctly. » (Small extent)
- i read mechatronic systems but did not find that it was helpful to solve the exercises.» (Some extent)
- The lecture notes were good but the course book wasn"t used at all by me.» (Some extent)
- The text book was not required but the slides were good.» (Some extent)
- The lab PM and computer exercises was very unclear.» (Some extent)

8. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?

31 svarande

Very badly»14 45%
Rather badly»7 22%
Rather well»7 22%
Very well»3 9%

Genomsnitt: 1.96

- After hours of trying we finaly got to know, via other students, that it is not possible to solve the problem as was stated in lab pm. This happened several times. » (Very badly)
- The handout for the lab assignment was a joke. In the first version it stated that you should do a model of the plant in MSL (even a picture of how it should look), this was not true. A few hours of work for nothing! Why was the MSL even on the webpage? The handout on fault detection had a question which referred to a compendium that didn"t exist. The first questions referred to a Matlab function that didn"t work. But this wasn"t explained until the lesson when you should do the assignment. » (Very badly)
- The handout assignments was the worst ive come across during my time at Chalmers. It felt like Paulo just had copied and pasted randomly from assignments from previous years. The lab assignment was very boring and definitely not inspiring and it didn´,t connect to the other things in the course.» (Very badly)
- It was the worst administrated course I have attended during all my years as a student. » (Very badly)
- The organization did not work at all. Feels like the lab-pm was not read by the exmaminer before students complained about it. It did not feel serious. The exercise on fault detection was on the same day as the report should be handed in which does not feel well planned. » (Very badly)
- Administration was not good. Faulty versions of PM"s (the MSL toolbox for example) and late uploads etc. Not good.» (Very badly)
- The lab pdf was really bad: No clear description of the purpose or the task. Missing information, old excercises mixed with new, guidelines that did not apply this year etc. » (Very badly)
- Lecture notes were sometimes uploaded late (but understand because the lecturer is new for this year).» (Rather badly)
- Please please check the materials you hand out before you publish it. The lab PM had so many fault that where revealed during week 2. T» (Rather badly)
- There seemed to be no communication between the lecturer and the TA responsible for the lab assignments. The Dymola licensing issue cost us about three weeks worth of computer lab time, and we ended up abandoning it entirely. Too problematic given our tight time constraints with the facilities.» (Rather badly)
- Few updates» (Rather badly)
- the second computer exercise were really bad. The instructions on the PM were bad and we only had 2 hours with a teacher. Also, the laboration were extremely badly administrated. The whole class worked about 4 weeks to get the computer programs to work.» (Rather well)
- The course administration worked well. But the Fault detection one was really ill readable and it seemed very rushed. The lectures for the fault detection happened AFTER the computer exercise and even after that lecture it still made little sense. » (Very well)

Study climate

9. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?

31 svarande

Very poor»3 9%
Rather poor»10 32%
Rather good»11 35%
Very good»2 6%
I did not seek help»5 16%

Genomsnitt: 2.87

- Since there was only one TA it was almost impossible to get help if you didn"t write your name on the list during the first 10 minutes. There has to be one more TA! » (Very poor)
- What good are problem sets without solutions available? Why have an exercise session if the TA isn"t solving any exercises? » (Very poor)
- Only one TA, she helped as much as she could, examinator not as helpful» (Rather poor)
- Even the first student representative meeting seemed to have no effect, even though they clearly stated the overall mind of the students.» (Rather poor)
- The exercises with Jonas was the good part in the course. The idea with one hour own calulations works quit well but it is a little short time. It is hard when solutions to the exercies is not provided at ping pong since you don"t want to go to the instition each time you need help. This implies that in many cases the exercise remains unsolved. At the computer exercises there was not a chance to get the help needed since all help concerned getting the program work. With 20 groups and all in need of help there is not enough with only one teacher. » (Rather poor)
- Very hard to get help during computer exercises.» (Rather poor)
- Asked for help once but did only get the answer that the questioned was badly formulated, and the answer not relevant» (Rather poor)
- The TA were not always avalable during consulting hours.» (Rather good)

10. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?

30 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»10 33%
Very well»20 66%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- Everybody was of same mind in the course.» (Very well)
- Other students explained the assignments better than the theachers.» (Very well)

11. How was the course workload?

29 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»2 6%
Adequate»20 68%
High»5 17%
Too high»2 6%

Genomsnitt: 3.24

- We didn"t really know what to do half of the time. The tasks in the book where not very good and all the hand-ins where quite confusing in what the tasks where.» (Low)
- what we was supposed to learn was very unclear.» (High)
- Very high when put in contrast to how much I learned from it» (Too high)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

31 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»2 6%
Adequate»13 41%
High»10 32%
Too high»6 19%

Genomsnitt: 3.64

- Took an extra course» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

31 svarande

Poor»23 74%
Fair»5 16%
Adequate»3 9%
Good»0 0%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.35 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- It felt like the course contained to many different fields. And only 2 of these areas were nearly the only thing that was tested on the exam.» (Poor)
- Very bad planning of assignments and lots of incorrect information in PM.» (Poor)
- It was a very strange plan to have the two by far most important parts the last weeks, when it was 80% of the final exam. Afterwards it felt like we had no use for the first parts. I know that Paulo thinks that you should really try hard when solving problems and in principle I agree. BUT, of practical reasons it doesn"t work when the only chance you have to get help is by emailing or go to the TA"s office. It would help a lot if there were solutions or at least answers to the problems. As it were now I only worked on problems during the scheduled time.» (Poor)
- actually the only course ive wished that I didn´,t attend to. » (Poor)
- *The partition on the course topics was really bad. It felt like the whole course was covered during the last two weeks (and then you didn"t get much time to really learn those parts). *Most of the time spent on the lab assignment were trying to fix the problems between Dymola/Simulink» (Poor)
- 1) Very badly planned lecture 2) It was hard to tell the actual "Design" part of the course. 3) Lecture notes aren"t much help, even after attending the lecture. 4) It feels like a huge waste of time to have taken that course instead of something else.» (Poor)
- The lab assignment was poorly handled. At first, the lab-PM was messy and it was very hard to understand what was supposed to be done. The lab-PM contredicted itself and sometimes refered to, for example Figure(??). Secondly, the dymola software didn"t work and wasn"t fixed for a long time. The exam didn"t at all reflect what was taught in the 7 weeks. The 3 last lectures was 80% of the exam. Also, each task on the exam was alot harder than previous years and no exersice ever matched the difficulty level. Paolo should at least had given a heads up about the increase of difficulty.» (Poor)
- It could have been a really good course if it was organized better.» (Poor)
- The exam did not match the course at all! Don"t get me wrong, the exam was very good, the exam was how one could want the course to be... Question 2 from the exam was a perfect example of what I now in hindsight wanted to learn from the course but didn"t. The computer exercises was bad, the gearbox one felt pointless, not the actual idea, but the exercise as it was.» (Poor)
- Very bad. Constantly giving out wrong information. » (Poor)
- You need to figure out what this course is about. For the exam to have so many "If you took the course in 20xx, do these problems, if you took the course in 20yy, do these" indicates that it"s more of a grab-bag of extra topics that don"t really fall into another course that are all just slapped together as an elective. The course feels like it lacks focus. » (Poor)
- It was, by far, the worst course I"ve taken at Chalmers in terms of how it was carried through by the examiner and his "accomplices". Paulo made sure learning became as difficult as it could possibly be by denying the students good exercises to solve on their own as well as wasting their time with his hipster, shallow, Power Point lectures. The fact that it is a semi compulsory course at mpsys brings down the Master Program as a whole. In the end I blame myself, for it was I who chose to take this course, knowing Paulo"s courses are not up to the Chalmers standard I have gotten used to.» (Poor)
- The lab assingnments should be revised.» (Fair)
- That exam and the computer sessions bring the course down a grade.» (Adequate)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- driveline lab. just make sure that the software is working»
- Nothing»
- Jonas has been doing a really good job during the exercises, maybe he can increase the speed a little.»
- PID design»
- The TA were good»
- The last lecture was by far the best one when the teacher took some examples after the lecture, it really stuck with you to have an example to go with what has been talked about. »
- PID controllers Common non-linearitys »
- Fault detection was a very interesting part. »
- The driveline lab was good if you ignore the poorly written and confusing lab pm »
- The core content of the course. The TA Jonas»
- The lab was good.»
- The subject is very interesting.»
- Jonas Nilsson. The exercises is the only redeming part of the course.»
- It is important to have a hands-on lab, so keep that. Keep the assignments on motor selection and fault detection, but make them a bit clearer in instruction and stricter on grading.»
- Fault detection exercise»

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- More time should be spent on describing functions and nyquist criterion. More exercises and above all solutions to them.»
- make sure that the software is working. i wasted a lot of time to get dymola working. »
- the home assignment and laborations...»
- The computer exercises, to little time to learn something. There should also be an extra TA. It would really help if the lecture about the modelica language could be focused on the actual modeling for the lab assignment. Paulo have to check how his slides look before putting them on the webpage, part of the material is unreadable due to his animations. »
- the hole structure of the course, so that everything or at least some of the contents connect to each other. Maybe the course should be changed to "describing function method" or/and "fault detection" since the exam only included those parts. A new laboration or remove it, because it didnt give you any further insights on what was "taught" during the course. write more on the black boards, its very hard to follow if someone talks about equations and doesnt write them at the same time.»
- The first 4 weeks was almost meaningless nothing of it came on the exam. The lab PM and exercise PM should be revised totally, they are very messy and is describing what the labs and exercises contains poorly.»
- Better indication on what is important before exam. The exam was GREAT, but i was not at all prepared for some of the tasks. I really did not know that those types of tasks could come in the exam.»
- *Much better syllabus! Maybe skip some parts and extend some parts. *The computer assignments is not well explained (particulary assignment 2). Some questions almost impossible to solve! *The problems between Dymola/Simulink would need some better descriptions on how to solve them. *Better description of the lab assignment (very unclear what to do and what values belongs to what) *SOLUTIONS to exercises!!! *Exercsies that is related to what will be on the exam.»
- More practical examples.. There were some examples present but really few, this is something that is ESSENTIAL if there is not a good course book available that has any examples in the chapters that are relevant to the course. 1+1 exercise session doesn"t work. Making students send a question to the T.A will never work as well. A regular 2h exercise session is something that is available in all other courses and is really weird that it"s not so in this one. One hour simply isn"t enough, especially in this course where there are no examples available anywhere. I"m pretty sure this is a subject that is talked about every year but I guess it will never change since it hasn"t already. The questions and work description of the lab and computer exercises need to be more clear. The lab. exercise was extremely hard to decipher of what was wanted from us.»
- Lab-pm, the exam, use blackboard not power point»
- The exam should reflect what is taught in the course. The Lab-assignment should be looked through and cleard up to not be confusing and misleading.»
- The part on cascade control was really difficult to understand. I have still no idea how to design a cascade controller. The first part was difficult since I wasn"t able to solve any exercises. The examiner said that we could simulate the results, but it is difficult to analyze simulations without understanding the problem. The problems on fault detection were a lot easier than the corresponding problems on the exam.»
- Lab assignments, hand in etc»
- The computer sessions were stressful and not particularly rewarding. Maliheh was helpful once you got help, but seriously, ONE session with ONE assistant for 25 odd (usually very confused) groups is not enough. The exam was preposterous.»
- The organization 1) rewrite the lab PM 2) rewrite the computer exercises »
- Provide solutions for exercises and more exercises on control, fault detection and describing function. Spend some more time on the theoritical background on fault detection, cascade control and describing function since that is what is examined and also the interesting part of the course. »
- Read through ALL documents and make sure they are up to date... remake the exercises so they actually teach you something. The Lab exercise felt like too much focus were on modeling the motor, instead more focus should be on the actual control... It"s hard to be more specific, the whole course felt sloppy. Also: SOLUTIONS TO EXERCISES! Just a simple answer to compare, not necessarily full solutions. Most students do not do exercises because of this.»
- The lab pdf must be updated/rewritten completely the planning of the lectures must be reconsidered. 40 % of the exam was from the last two lectures in the course. That is not OK»
- Review the lab and all the hand-ins. They are so bad at the moment... Keep the exam but please prepare the students for it instead of teaching so simple stuff.»
- Is the course on fault detection and isolation and the describing function, or is it on design of mechatronics systems with motor selection and rapid modeling tools like Dymola, SimScape, etc.? It feels like if you try to have both you can"t cover everything at the level of depth expected of a graduate-level course.»
- Answers to exercises are needed, more examples during exercises, working computer setup, other distribution of time (no many weeks on a part that apparently was not relevant)»
- I think the assignements results should be reflected in the final grade. I mean for example having 10 points based on assignements, 40 on exam or so. It would be more motivating to do them in a proper way. Also the main project (controll of the plant) could be more interesting.»

16. Additional comments

- This course was the worst course I have studied at Chalmers. The last three lectures were pretty straight forward but everything before that was totally messy and unimportant. It seems to»
- modelica as a language was interesting and i would have liked to learn more about it. it seems much more powerful compared to simulink.»
- Over all the course is very poorly organized. I feel ashamed even when thinking that people from abroad comes to chalmers expecting the education to bee of high class and pay big money, getting in return a course like this. This is the first course on chalmers that I didn"t finish. I spent a lot of time but learned NOTHING. The course should absolutely not be semi-compulsory. »
- I cant stress this enough,the course was terrible. if Paulo will continue with this course next year he should really think on why he´,s doing it and what we´,re supposed to learn from the course.»
- I wouldnt recomend this course to anyone at its current shape. The lab and exercise PMs are a disaster and the exam is not reflecting the course, it only reflects the last two weeks, and the exam was way to hard for what we have learned.»
- Did not attend lectures first four weeks, but heard from other students that they were "not to good". Attended lectures last three weeks and I thought they were really good.»
- The course needs a makeover!»
- The exam contained material we had not seen before»
- I am dissapointed of how Paolo increased the difficulty of the exam without telling us. I studied on old exams and exersices and tought I could pass the exam pretty easily, but it was far from easy.»
- Its an interesting course but it is in need of some adjustments. »
- The exam did not reflect the course as a whole. Describing functions took up about 40% of the exam and this part was covered during the last week. Preferrably this should have been done earlier. »
- The labs at Chalmers in this program have so far seemed pointless. It is possible to come in with almost zero knowledge or understanding of the project and run through the lab because everything is setup and prepared for us. Just once I"d like to sit down and get some instruction on how to even link the process to the computer through Simulink. I"m going to have a Master"s Degree and I feel like there"s almost no practical knowledge that"s going to come with it. The labs should be more engaging, more in-depth, and more challenging, this means we should be able to see the lab process, tinker with it for a few hours, work on our controllers and models for it over a few weeks, come back whenever we need to double check something, and ultimately fulfill some objective beyond "be present". Labs need more access and stricter requirements for passing.»
- Still feeling this way after knowing that I passed the course»
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 1.35

Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 1.35
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.08

Kursutvärderingssystem från